The hazards of not drinking

The corrupt and incompetent WHO started the year with some of their 'no safe level' schtick in Lancet Public Health. It took thirteen of their parasitic representatives to produce a wafer-thin article which cites the rectally-sourced statistic that alcohol causes 740,000 cases of cancer every year.

 

Evidence does not indicate the existence of a particular threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol start to manifest in the human body. As such, no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established. Alcohol consumers should be objectively informed about the risks of cancer and other health conditions associated with alcohol consumption.

 

The public would be 'objectively informed' if the (minuscule) absolute risk of developing cancer was explained to them and the overall benefits of moderate drinking frankly laid out. The authors mention the 'potential existence of a protective effect for cardiovascular diseases' (note the word 'potential'), but do not acknowledge that moderate drinkers are around 20 per cent less likely to die prematurely than teetotallers.

 

The Daily Mail covered the story and I gave them a quote:

Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank, criticised the paper.

He told MailOnline: 'In its efforts to demonise alcohol, the WHO speculates there to be “no safe level” of drinking for a few forms of cancer. 

'It admits that there is insufficient evidence to support this.

'There is, however, a huge amount of evidence built up over decades showing that moderate drinking significantly reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and dementia.'

He added: 'On average, moderate drinkers live longer than teetotallers, so if moderate drinking is risky enough to worry about, the risks of not drinking at all must be terrifying.'